Share this

Read more!

The restaurant in Salisbury near to where former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal was found critically ill by exposure to a nerve agent. (c) Andrew Matthews/PA Wire/PA Images. All rights reserved.

The
UK Government has not presented conclusive evidence that the nerve
agent used in the attempted assassinations of Sergey Skripal and his
daughter Yulia originated in Russia, let alone that the Russian state
was responsible for these crimes.

The
Prime Minister’s statement
to the House of Commons on 12 March 2018 said:

“It
is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. It is part
of a group of nerve agents known as Novichok.

“Based
on the positive identification of this chemical agent by
world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory at Porton Down, our knowledge that Russia has previously
produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so, Russia’s
record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations and our
assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for
assassinations, the Government have concluded that it is highly
likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and
Yulia Skripal.”

That
is a heroic effort to connect the Russian state with the attempted
assassinations, but it is almost entirely devoid of facts that do so.

To
make a connection, the ideal scenario would have been that, having
carried out the relevant analysis on the nerve agent used, Porton
Down scientists were able to state unequivocally that it was
manufactured in Russia. Clearly, they were not able to do so,
otherwise it would have been at the heart of the Prime Minister’s
message to the House of Commons on 12 March.

Think
of the difference it would have made to her case that Russia was
responsible if she had been had been able to say:

“Our
world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory at Porton Down have established that the agent used was
produced in Russia”.

Instead,
in trying to prove the Russian state responsible, the Prime
Minister had to make do with saying that the nerve agent used was “of
a type developed by Russia” and “Russia has previously produced
this agent and would still be capable of doing so”. That raises
the possibility that Russia may have been the source of the nerve
agent, but it is a long way off from proof.

And
it certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility of another state (or
even a non-state entity) being responsible for its manufacture. In
her statement, the Prime Minister did not attempt to argue that no
state other than Russia is capable of manufacturing the agent used in
Salisbury.

On
20
March, the New Scientist said
that “several countries could have made the nerve agent used in the
chemical attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal”. It also said that
“other countries legally created Novichok for testing purposes
after its existence was revealed in 1992 and a production method has
even been published” by Iranian scientists in 2016. The creation
of Novichok for testing purposes is legal under the Chemical Weapons
Convention, partly so that agents can be identified in situations
like Salisbury. The UK may be one of those countries: in
an interview
with Deutsche
Welle on
20 March, Boris Johnson was asked if Porton Down possesses samples
of Novichok:
he replied “they do”.

Former
UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has commented
extensively on the fallout from the events in Salisbury on 4 March,
wrote
the following on 16 March:

“I
have now received confirmation from a well-placed FCO [Foreign &
Commonwealth Office] source that Porton Down scientists are not able
to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture, and have
been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton
Down would only sign up to the formulation ‘of a type developed by
Russia’ after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a
compromise formulation.”

Russia
declared guilty

On
14 March, the Prime Minister returned
to the House of Commons to declare Russia guilty of the attempted
assassinations and to pronounce sentence (which was the expulsion of
23 Russian diplomats and a range of other measures).

On
that occasion, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tried to do his job as
Leader of the Opposition and seek information about the progress of
the investigation. In particular, he asked the Prime Minister if
tests had been done on the nerve agent at Porton Down to try to
identify its origin and those responsible:

“Has
high-resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve
agent, and has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its
production or the identity of its perpetrators?”

An
answer to that question would have revealed that Porton Down
scientists were unable to establish the location of the agent’s
production. Understandably, the Prime Minister didn’t answer that
question (and others from him), since having already declared Russia
guilty exploring the evidence for its guilt was redundant. Instead,
she rounded on him for failing to endorse wholeheartedly the guilty
verdict she had declared.

OPCW
verifies destruction of Russia's chemical weapons programme

On
27 September 2017, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) announced that it had verified the completion of the
destruction of Russia's chemical weapons programme. Understandably,
the Prime Minister didn’t mention this relevant fact in her
indictment of Russia in the House of Commons on 12 March.

Of
course, this doesn’t absolutely exclude the possibility that Russia
continues to hold chemical weapons stocks and/or production
facilities. On the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on 18 March Boris
Johnson claimed
just that, saying:

“We
actually have evidence within the last 10 years that Russia has not
only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purpose
of assassination, but has also been creating and stockpiling
Novichok.”

And
the Prime Minister told
the House of Commons something similar on 26 March. But neither gave
any evidence.

The
OPCW is the international body charged with the implementation of the
Chemical
Weapons Convention. The Convention, which came into force on 29
April 1997, bans the acquisition and use of chemical weapons and
requires state parties to destroy existing stocks and production
facilities upon joining.

However,
state parties are allowed to produce small quantities of chemical
agents, in order to develop countermeasures to them (see UK
Government document The
Truth About Porton Down).
If Boris Johnson is to be believed, Porton Down possesses samples of
Novichok.

States
that joined prior to the Convention coming into force were allowed 10
years to complete the destruction of their stocks and production
facilities. Both the US and Russia were unable to fulfil that
requirement and had to be given additional time to complete the
destruction. US is now the only state party to the Convention that
still hasn’t fulfilled that requirement – it is scheduled to do
so in 2023. All the states in the world apart from Egypt, Israel,
North Korea and South Sudan are now parties to the Convention.

On
27 September 2017, the OPCW Director-General,
Ahmet Üzümcü, congratulated
Russia in the following terms:

“The
completion of the verified destruction of Russia's chemical weapons
programme is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the
Chemical Weapons Convention. I congratulate Russia and I
commend all of their experts who were involved for their
professionalism and dedication…”

Addressing
a conference of OPCW state parties in November 2017, the UK
Ambassador to the OPCW, Peter Wilson, praised Director-General Üzümcü
and listed his achievements during the year. These included: “the
completion of the verified destruction of Russia’s declared
chemical weapons programme.”

He
didn’t qualify this achievement in any way: he didn’t suggest
that Russia had an undeclared Novichok programme. The UK was,
apparently, content that all of Russia’s chemical weapons stocks
and production facilities had been eliminated. It is strange that a
few months later the UK is claiming that Russia is “creating and
stockpiling Novichok” and “investigating the delivery of nerve
agents for the purpose of assassination”.

OPCW
state parties “shall consult and cooperate”

Article
IX.1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention lays down that state parties
to the Convention “shall consult and cooperate, directly among
themselves, or through the Organization (OPCW) … on any matter
which may be raised relating to the object and purpose … of this
Convention”.

Article
IX.2 stipulates that state parties “should, whenever possible,
first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of
information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may
cause doubt about compliance with this Convention”. A request for
information from one state to another should be answered
appropriately “as soon as possible, but in any case not later than
10 days after the request”.

The
attempted assassination of Sergey Skripal and daughter certainly
caused “doubt about compliance with the Convention”. Under
Article IX of the Convention, it was the clear duty of the UK to
co-operate with other state parties including Russia (and the OPCW)
to investigate this matter.

Instead,
in the House of Commons on 12 March, the Prime Minister declared that
the Russian state was responsible – in her words:

“There
are, therefore, only two plausible explanations for what happened in
Salisbury on 4 March: either this was a direct act by the Russian
state against our country; or the Russian Government lost control of
their potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed
it to get into the hands of others.”

By
the time she spoke, the Russian ambassador had been summoned to the
Foreign Office and asked “to explain which of the two possibilities
it is and to account for how this Russian-produced nerve agent could
have been deployed in Salisbury against Mr Skripal and his daughter”
(in her words). And he was told “that the Russian Federation must
immediately provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok
programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, and he has requested the Russian Government’s response by
the end of tomorrow”.

That
procedure was not designed to elicit information from a fellow state
party to the Convention, information which might throw light on the
origin of the nerve agent used in Salisbury and who used it. On the
contrary, it was an ultimatum requiring the Russian state to plead
guilty, not merely to the attempted assassinations, but also to
having a Novichok production programme. Understandably, Russia
refused to respond.

This
refusal has been interpreted by the UK government and others as
evidence of guilt. In fact, unlike the UK, Russia has tried to act
in accordance with its obligations under Article IX.2, offering to
respond within 10 days to any UK request for information. However,
the UK has not taken up this offer and it has also refused to supply
Russia with a sample of the nerve agent used in the attack for
testing by Russian experts (see Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs document
dated 21 March). The Russian Embassy requested access to Julia
Skripal,
who is a Russian citizen, but that was also refused.

UK
seeks OPCW technical assistance

After
declaring the Russian state guilty without any independent input, the
UK did eventually seek technical assistance from the OPCW. The Prime
Minister told the House of Commons on 12 March that “we are working
with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our
analysis”.

Technical
experts from the OPCW are in Salisbury at the time of writing (26
March). Court permission has been obtained for blood samples to be
taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal. This was necessary because both
are unable to give permission themselves. According to the court
judgement, the OPCW technical experts intend (a) to undertake their
own analysis of the freshly taken blood samples for evidence of nerve
agents and (b) to retest the samples already analysed by Porton Down
scientists. These had originally “tested positive for the presence
of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent”,
according to the judgement.

What
motivated Putin to do it?

On
16 March, Boris Johnson declared
that it was "overwhelmingly likely" that Vladimir Putin
personally ordered the attack against Sergei Skripal.
But what motivated Putin to do it? To that question, the Foreign
Secretary gave no answer.

At
the time of the attack, a presidential election, in which he was
expected to have an overwhelming victory, was imminent; in a few
months’ time, Russia was going to host the World Cup and he would
have the honour of presenting the Cup to the winning team. Why would
he risk having this disrupted?

The
attempted assassination of Sergey Skripal – a Russian who had spied
for Britain using a nerve agent with Russian associations – was
always going to be blamed on the Russian state and its president,
whether or not the evidence warranted such a conclusion. Diplomatic
and economic retaliation against Russia by Britain and its allies was
inevitable. Disruption of the World Cup by, for example, the
withdrawal of some of the competing countries was a possibility. At
the time of writing (26 March), it looks as if the response is going
to be largely diplomatic, but just imagine the reaction if more
British citizens had been injured or even killed in the attack.

If
Putin ordered the attack, he must have been prepared to risk this
kind of retaliation and worse. But what could he possibly hope to
gain by doing so? It has been suggested that, in attempting to kill
Sergei Skripal,
he was acting on the principle that traitors should be executed.
Proponents of this theory have quoted remarks
he made in December 2010, which could be interpreted as a warning
that those who betray the country would face lethal consequences:

“Traitors
will kick the bucket, believe me. … Whatever they got in exchange
for it, those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on
them.”

But
why wait until the spring of 2018 before attempting to execute Sergei
Skripal, when he was convicted for spying for Britain in 2006? And
why, after 12 years of waiting, choose to do it two weeks before the
presidential election and with the World Cup in the offing? Why not
delay it to the autumn, for instance?

Also,
why use a nerve gas with Russian associations in executing traitors
or political opponents, which makes it easy for the finger to be
pointed at Russia, whether the evidence justifies it or not? If a
hand gun had been used to kill Sergei Skripal in Salisbury on 4
March, most likely he would be dead (and his daughter would be
alive). Most likely also, the UK would not have been able to pin the
murder on Russia and get international support for diplomatic
sanctions against Russia.

The
attempted killing of Sergey Skripal has had negative consequences for
President Putin and the Russian state — consequences, though mostly
diplomatic to date, that were entirely predictable. Those who ordered
the killing would have known that there would be negative
consequences for President Putin and the Russian state.

One
could for forgiven for thinking that those who ordered the killing
were opponents of President Putin.

Comments

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.